Exam 2 Review

Under the act of state doctrine, a U.S. court can rule on the validity of a foreign government’s acts within its own territory.

• True

• False

Under the principle of comity, a domestic court will not examine the validity of any act committed by a foreign government within the court’s jurisdiction.

• True

• False

Coffee Company, a U.S. firm, owns property in the Dominican Republic. When the Dominican government seizes the property, the company asks a U.S. court to order the property’s return. The court rules that the Dominican Republic is exempt from the court’s jurisdiction. This is an application of

• a coercive action.

• the act of state doctrine.

• the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

• the principle of comity.

Habitable Premises Corporation, a U.S. firm, owns property in India. The government of India seizes the property for a proper public purpose and pays the firm just compensation. This is

• confiscation.

• the act of state doctrine.

• the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

• expropriation.

Product misuse is recognized as a defense to a claim for product liability only when the particular misuse was reasonably foreseeable.

• True

• False

To maintain an action in strict product liability, the plaintiff must show why and how the product became defective.

• True

• False

Proximate cause exists if “but for” a wrongful act, an injury would not have occurred.

• True

• False

A person who wrongfully hurts another’s good name or reputation orally may be liable for libel.

• True

• False

Don interferes with the business interests of Erin in a way not permitted by law, and Erin’s business is harmed as a result. To be liable to Erin for the commission of an intentional tort, Don must have

• intended to commit the act.

• intended to harm Erin’s business.

• acted with an evil motive.

• acted with a harmful motive.

Ricard, an engineer, supervises the construction of a new mountainside roadway. The road collapses in a landslide due to faulty grading. Motorists injured in the collapse sue Ricard in a tort action for negligence. Under that theory, as a professional, Ricard is held to the same standard of care as

• ordinary persons.

• other engineers.

• other professionals, including doctors, dentists, and lawyers.

• those injured in the collapse of the bridge.